User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you prefer Isometric or Oval?

Voters
1442. You may not vote on this poll
  • Isometric

    1,068 74.06%
  • Oval

    374 25.94%
Page 19 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast
Results 307 to 323 of 559
  1. #307
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhirata View Post
    I realised a while ago that my toilet is ISO-shaped. Therefore it has a larger sweetspot which means it's easier to use compared to the oval-shaped toilet at my grandmother's house . But the oval-shaped toilet has more 'bang' factor somehow, which isn't really good when I'm using it.. very disgusting.

    Iso toilet bowl is not friendly, as it will mess the top part if ur aim is not accurate(if u knw wat i mean). But I personally like ISO racquet after a few try on both (Oval and Iso). More power, more control, and more speed!

  2. #308
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball. An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.

  3. #309
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball. An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.
    an american-football ball is not shperical

  4. #310
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball. An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.
    When did rugby start using a spherical ball?

    Star is spherical is because of gravataional force and due to plasma has liquid like property. Not becuase of aero dynamic.

    I am very shocked that a Oval Cab30ms with a box shape frame is more aero dynamic than a ISO shaped AT900-t.

    WOW, I don't think 3 year's of physics in univ class teach any of these theory...
    Last edited by silentheart; 05-20-2008 at 04:06 PM.

  5. #311
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An oval shaped racquet is always more aerodynamic than an iso shaped one of similar x-section and thickness dimensions. AOTBE an iso racquet feels ponderous and its much larger stringbed area has significantly more air resistance. The problem is that there the industry is catering for the badminton masses and prefer iso because newcomers find it easier to play with iso. There is not much interest in new investment in new and innovative oval design molds.

  6. #312
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    An oval shaped racquet is always more aerodynamic than an iso shaped one of similar x-section and thickness dimensions. AOTBE an iso racquet feels ponderous and its much larger stringbed area has significantly more air resistance. The problem is that there the industry is catering for the badminton masses and prefer iso because newcomers find it easier to play with iso. There is not much interest in new investment in new and innovative oval design molds.
    Can you just say that ISO fram has bigger frame in general and that is the reason oval has less air resistant than iso frame? If a iso fram has same circumfrence as the oval frame, there is no difference in air resistance. Yonex claim ISO has bigger sweet spot. It never claim ISO has bigger frame.
    I have no further comment on your racquet design.

  7. #313
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Can you just say that ISO fram has bigger frame in general and that is the reason oval has less air resistant than iso frame? If a iso fram has same circumfrence as the oval frame, there is no difference in air resistance. Yonex claim ISO has bigger sweet spot. It never claim ISO has bigger frame.
    I have no further comment on your racquet design.
    Of course iso has a bigger stringbed area, because it is basically an oval with extended shoulders. This increases air resistance from two sources-a bigger stringbed with more strings in the way and the ponderous swing of the iso shape with its two extended shoulders. You might notice that some iso designs try to minimize this problem by reducing the size of the two extended shoulders. Some even look more like oval than iso. Notice that not all iso are of the same size and not as squarish on the shoulders?
    BTW, the Yonex Swingpower was a very good racquet with very slim dimensions and excellent material. Its weakness was its huge iso shape and stringbed size, which somewhat stunted what would otherwise have been a very maneuverable and powerful racquet.

  8. #314
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minnesota US
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    isometric for me. i think it has a better sweet spot.

  9. #315
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Iso has its advantages as well as disadvantages. Iso is an easy racquet for beginners and players who have difficulty hitting the sweet spot or in the center of the racquet.
    However, iso has some serious disadvantages. One is that it is more ponderous because of the less streamline shape with two extended shoulders. Another more serious one is a poorer center of gravity. With extended shoulders the center of gravity is now being thrown a bit off tangent. Players who place lead tapes at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on an iso racquet knows what I am talking about.
    Try to look it from this angle: why is a bullet shape more towards an oval shape than an iso shape?

  10. #316
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You mean this one?
    http://www.jojoxserie.net/pics/20120...et%20mista.jpg
    or this one?
    http://www.thebulletbarn.com/images/...upwithBall.jpg
    How about this one?
    http://www.ironbikeworx.com/zc/image...t44magnick.jpg

    I feel this is not oval shape...
    http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...api_bullet.jpg

    One last thing. You swing the racquet with face hitting the shuttle. You do not try to stab a shuttle and hope you can get it over the net.

  11. #317
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The racquet face must be multi-directional in a swing, otherwise it is wrong technique. That is how you get pronation and supination which eliminates restrictions to efficient stroke-making.
    BTW here is a tip on how to test your own racquet for a good balance and center of gravity: place the middle of the shaft onto your left palm and then rotate the racquet with your right hand quickly. Try all your racquets, including iso, oval, and those with lead tape. What do you get?

  12. #318
    Regular Member george@chongwei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    29,951
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    its always isometric head shape for me

  13. #319
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Bs

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    You mean this one?
    http://www.jojoxserie.net/pics/20120...et%20mista.jpg
    or this one?
    http://www.thebulletbarn.com/images/...upwithBall.jpg
    How about this one?
    http://www.ironbikeworx.com/zc/image...t44magnick.jpg

    I feel this is not oval shape...
    http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...api_bullet.jpg

    One last thing. You swing the racquet with face hitting the shuttle. You do not try to stab a shuttle and hope you can get it over the net.
    LOLOLOL, i didn't understand taneepak's logic at all either.
    maybe he meant oval racket is a better projectile than iso, like LD and taufik could have threw their rackets much FURTHER if they have used oval rackets instead of their AT700's ROFL
    Last edited by cooler; 05-30-2008 at 02:14 PM.

  14. #320
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Definintely Iso for me, after using an oval head shaped racket while being forced to play defensively I can recognise the value in the stronger off center hits the Isometric head shape can provide which makes defence alot easier.

  15. #321
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know that taneepak gets a lot of grief on topics and I'm not commenting on those other threads, but his physics here is quite accurate. If you place a typical isometric racquet head next to an oval one, you'll see that the oval is usually the same height and width, but does not stretch out as far as an isometric head at the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock points. This makes the iso larger and therefore gives it a higher drag factor.

    Note that the area of two different shapes is not the same just because they have the same circumference. eg the area of a square and circle is not the same if they share the same circumference.

    The other factor here is that a circle is the strongest 2 dimensional shape that exists. This means that an isometric head will suffer more distortion upon impacting a shuttle than an oval racquet will, since an oval is close to a circle. The weak points in an isometric shape being at the vertices (corners). Consequently, isometric shapes will also take less strain when stringing.

    These principles go waaaaay back. Take Ironbridge (the first iron bridge in the world) in Shropshire, England for example. Everything about it was based on pure curves and circles to ensure that the whole structure didn't collapse under its own weight.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Bridge

    If you want pure stability and power, then a circle would be the best design. However, if you want to trade off a bit of power, frame strength and stability for extra length of sweetspot, then an oval gives you that. If you want to trade yet more frame strength, stability and power for a wider and longer sweetspot, then you can go with an isometric.

    To the more advanced, the width of the sweetspot is less important, since you rarely hit off to the side of the sweetspot. The length of the sweetspot is more important, since while smashing, you are more prone to hitting high up on the strings in order to hit the shuttle early and downwards.

  16. #322
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cool comment.

    I have 1 oval and 4 isos, I don't quite feel the consequences of hitting off the sweetspot. When I miss hit, I hit the frame or miss the birdy.

    I like both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunk1970 View Post
    I know that taneepak gets a lot of grief on topics and I'm not commenting on those other threads, but his physics here is quite accurate. If you place a typical isometric racquet head next to an oval one, you'll see that the oval is usually the same height and width, but does not stretch out as far as an isometric head at the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock points. This makes the iso larger and therefore gives it a higher drag factor.

    Note that the area of two different shapes is not the same just because they have the same circumference. eg the area of a square and circle is not the same if they share the same circumference.

    The other factor here is that a circle is the strongest 2 dimensional shape that exists. This means that an isometric head will suffer more distortion upon impacting a shuttle than an oval racquet will, since an oval is close to a circle. The weak points in an isometric shape being at the vertices (corners). Consequently, isometric shapes will also take less strain when stringing.

    These principles go waaaaay back. Take Ironbridge (the first iron bridge in the world) in Shropshire, England for example. Everything about it was based on pure curves and circles to ensure that the whole structure didn't collapse under its own weight.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Bridge

    If you want pure stability and power, then a circle would be the best design. However, if you want to trade off a bit of power, frame strength and stability for extra length of sweetspot, then an oval gives you that. If you want to trade yet more frame strength, stability and power for a wider and longer sweetspot, then you can go with an isometric.

    To the more advanced, the width of the sweetspot is less important, since you rarely hit off to the side of the sweetspot. The length of the sweetspot is more important, since while smashing, you are more prone to hitting high up on the strings in order to hit the shuttle early and downwards.

  17. #323
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi Dunk1970,
    I am not against your post or anything. I just want to make some point clear.
    1) Taneepak is making over general statements and often time lead to too many exceptions that his statement contradict one to another. For example, ISO frame has larger face than Oval. Not necessary. Fischer oval racquets has larger face than MP99 which is an ISO. See http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/s...ad.php?t=32272
    2) You pointed out yourself that given the circumference the same, the oval will have bigger area then ISO.
    3) Regarding air resistance, it is the cross section that matter, not the shape of the frame. As I pointed out, you swing your racquet face the forward, stabing like fancing. unless some one jumped you and you try to defend yourself.

    What he said may be right in some way. However, without giving specific condition, reason and fact, they are just his opinion, no proof to back it up.

Page 19 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Head heavy very stiff Oval Head racket ???
    By pussiii999 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 17
    : 12-19-2008, 05:19 AM
  2. Square/Isometric or Oval/Traditional ?
    By eh7eh7 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 1
    : 03-27-2006, 08:30 AM
  3. Oval head, isometric head and ovaliso head.
    By Extremesmash in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 5
    : 11-18-2004, 01:39 PM
  4. switching to oval from isometric head shape
    By Josh in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 4
    : 12-18-2001, 03:19 AM
  5. Isometric vs. Oval Head
    By Vy in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 14
    : 09-18-2001, 12:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •